S FATHEUDDIN AKBAR Vs. GHANSHAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point arising in this revision is as to whether where the agreement is that the tenant should pay the Municipal taxes in addition to the payment of rent, such taxes would be regarded as part of rent and if the tenant makes default in payment of the taxes he would be regarded as a defaulter to entitle the landlord to evict the tenant.

(2.) Under a lease executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioners, the agreement was that in addition to the rent of Rs. 65/- the tenant was to pay the house taxes and other taxes payable in respect of the house. It happened that the tenant failed to pay the taxes which had to be paid by the landlord. The land-lord sought eviction of the tenant stating that he became a defaulter. The rent controller held that there was no wilful default of the terms of the tenancy agreement and therefore the tenant was not liable to be evicted. This order was confirmed by the District Judge. Hence this revision.

(3.) A distinction is sought to be drawn by the learned District Judge between [he provisions of the Rent Control Act which has since been repealed and the present Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease) Control Act. The right to eject a tenant accrues to the landlord where the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the House within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed for the agreement of tenancy. That the tenant paid the rent and is not in arrears is admitted. It is also admitted that the taxes that were due were not paid by the tenant. It is further admitted that the liability to pay taxes was also upon the tenant. The tenant now seeks to take advantage of the wording in Section 10 which says that 'if the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him' and urges that taxes can never be regarded as being synonymous with rent. Obviously there is a fallacy in this argument. The word "rent" has not been defined in the Act. But it has been understood to mean the return in money or kind for the enjoyment of a specific property held by one person from another. This return in this case, it has to be said, has been agreed to be a certain amount of money by way of rent and also the amount payable as Municipal Taxes for the house. In substance the total rent is made up of a particular sum of money which is payable to the land lord and another sum of money payable to the Municipality on behalf of the landlord. It must be said that, the rent agreed upon in this case has been split up into two items as specified above. I am of opinion that both the courts were wrong in putting the very restricted meaning on the word "rent" in Section 10. I may as well advert to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Someshwar Dayal v. Dwarakadhisji 1950 All 610. In Karnani Properties Limited v. Miss Augustine 1957 SCJ 177. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court approved of observations in the case of Wilkes v. Goodwin (1923) 2 K.B. 105. Their Lordships referred to the English decisions which held that 'rent' included not only what is ordinarily described as rent but also payment in respect of special amenities provided by the land-lord under the agreement between him and his tenant. They further held that the word must be taken to have been used in its ordinary dictionary meaning and it is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed to be paid by the tenant to his landlord. It must, therefore, be held that this was a part of the rent which was payable by the tenant to the landlord. If that is the case, the non-payment of the taxes would mean non-payment of rent and would be covered by Section 10 of Act XX of 1954 [The Hyderabad Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease) Control Act.] The judgment of the courts below cannot stand. They are therefore set aside.